If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And if you romance Reg or Octavia exclusively, then the other one you don't romance will die near the end. So if you want both of them alive don't romance them, or romance both. Not so "optional threesome" as devs promised, if you want save everyone you can. I really see that their romance was in mind that you romance them both, and exclusive option were added afterwards.

In this case, why play the game at all, I can imagine everything I want to happen. But it does not mean it will. I can imagine, for example, that my character became king, solved all problems and killed all enemies already in the first act, and lived happily ever after harem full of husbands till the day he died.
And devs don't leave me any choice in this matter, if I want a spouse for my gay male character. I don't want to break them up, but in this case I have to romance them both (that goes against my roleplay) or neither. That's why people also complaining about Tristian and Amiri, that if you want to romance Tristian, you can't save them both. If you have no other choice, it just bad design, not consequences for you actions.
Honestly, I would not be so upset about this, if there was any other option for gay romance. As was said a few posts up everyone have at least one other romance option. But if you want gay romance (or straight for females) you have to sacrifice other companion for your happiness. If you want romance Tristian Amiri will die, and if you want romance Reg/Octi the other one of their couple will die. But there isn't any reprecussions if you romance Valerie, and if you want to romance Nyrissa they even not make you sacrifice anything, but reward you with new pretty good ending.

Except in this case, it's not well made, in my opinion. Pathfinder is a game in which death is not final. Yes, this make a tragedies harder to write. But the solution is maybe not to try to write a tragedie. That's not what kingmaker is about. Happy ending is in the spirit of the original game. Because at the end of the game, we are overpowered.

Spoiler:

We defeat a god, after all, resurecting our companion should be easy

On a gameplay perspective, losing companion can ruin a party. The last levels are already frustrating enought without that (even if things got better since patch 1.1). And the fact that some personal quest are mutualy exclusive is, in my opinion, bad design. Especialy when one of the concerned companion is so relevant to the plot.

When making decisions make things easier or harder, that make you enjoy your choice. You don't need to make a character die in order to make the player care about his choice.

Except when the NPC does not want to be ressurected. Having gone to their alignments version of heaven why would they necessarily want to return. If a soul does not want to return then death is final.

Well, in the game, they have good reasons to stay with us. Most of the one who died in my game arn't the type of people who would be selfish enough to stay in heaven while their friends are struggling. I would understand if someone like Harim would refuse resurrection. But for others, it don't make any sense. Especially for character that stayed in my team for nearly all the game and for which I did all I could.

At least, we shouldn't have to chose between redeeming Tristan and keeping our alliance with the Aldori. I waited for Tristan second quest during act 4 and 5, and I thought there was a bug. If we can save Tristan during this time of the game, we should be able to redeem him.